What if...SECDEF Salamander?

Oh, the Places We Would Go!

Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!

We have a new SECNAV!

Lots of hard work to do. I wish the SECNAV a great staff, superb partners on The Hill, and a CNO worthy of the time we are in.

Well, in an attempt to make me feel better out here in the provinces, a friend asked Grok,

If @cdrsalamanderwas Secretary of Defense what would he do?

Right now, SECNAV Phelen has an Army guy as his boss. I think he would need a proper Sailor…but perhaps in a parallel universe.

This was so fun, I asked my friend if I could use Grok’s response to him. If nothing else, it would be a good opening gambit as SECDEF, Heck, it looks like some of the suggestions are already in work by SECDEF Hegseth. Yes, the list is very Navy-heavy, but we are a maritime and aerospace nation, and that is what I mostly write about.

Here it is in all its glory! (NB: it is about 90%. Grok got some of it slightly off, but I’m leaving it as is anyway)

---

GROK on SECDEF Salamander

Based on my analysis of @cdrsalamander ’s X profile and posts, as well as the broader context of their milblog "CDR Salamander," I can infer a set of actions they might pursue as Secretary of Defense. This is a speculative exercise rooted in their public commentary as of March 19, 2025—a retired naval officer with a sharp focus on naval power, readiness, and skepticism of bureaucratic inefficiencies. Their posts reveal frustration with the Department of Defense’s (DoD) current trajectory, a preference for practical solutions over flashy innovation, and a strategic emphasis on countering near-peer threats like China. Here’s what they might do, grounded in those themes:

Potential Actions as Secretary of Defense

1. Overhaul the Bureaucracy

   • Action: Launch a “bush-hogging” of the DoD’s administrative structure, slashing redundant offices and consolidating acquisition oversight into a leaner, more decisive body.

   • Rationale: A June 2024 post on X laments the need for a “complete rebuild” of DoD, not just a reset, pointing to entrenched bureaucracy as a core problem. They’d likely target what they see as bloated, accretion-encumbered processes.

2. Prioritize Naval Supremacy

   • Action: Redirect existing budgets to accelerate shipbuilding (e.g., Arleigh Burke-class destroyers) and enforce a 355-ship fleet minimum, halting premature decommissionings.

   • Rationale: Their focus on fleet size and readiness—often highlighted in posts about shrinking naval capacity—suggests they’d push hard to restore maritime dominance, especially in the Indo-Pacific.

3. Shift R&D to Practical Outcomes

   • Action: Reorient research funding away from experimental “transformational” projects (e.g., Zumwalt-class) toward proven systems and energetics like CL-20 for missile upgrades.

   • Rationale: Criticism of overhyped programs and China’s lead in energetics (noted in blog posts) indicates a preference for tangible, near-term capability over long-shot bets.

4. Enforce Readiness Standards

   • Action: Mandate that 90% of the fleet and air wings be combat-ready at all times, reallocating maintenance funds from administrative overhead without increasing budgets.

   • Rationale: Frequent mentions of maintenance backlogs and overworked crews signal a drive to prioritize operational uptime over paper exercises.

5. Deep-Select Leadership

   • Action: Bypass traditional promotion pipelines to appoint aggressive, Burke-like leaders (referencing Admiral Arleigh Burke) to key uniformed roles, emphasizing merit over seniority.

   • Rationale: Their X post about needing “deep-selects” for a hard reset reflects distrust in the current leadership culture—they’d shake up the brass.

6. Focus on Munitions and Logistics

   • Action: Order a no-cost audit of missile and ASW weapon stockpiles, then reposition reserves to forward bases in the Pacific using existing transport assets.

   • Rationale: Posts on X and the blog stress munitions shortages and static magazine vulnerabilities, pushing for a logistics overhaul to match peer threats.

7. Strengthen Indo-Pacific Posture

   • Action: Conduct an immediate, cost-neutral review of force posture west of the International Date Line, shifting assets from less critical theaters like Europe.

   • Rationale: The Pacific is a recurring priority in their commentary, framed as the decisive theater against China.

8. Revive Traditional Capabilities

   • Action: Require all new surface combatants to include naval guns (e.g., 5-inch or larger), adjusting existing design budgets rather than adding funds.

   • Rationale: Their lament over the loss of guns for littoral combat suggests a return to proven, versatile weaponry.

9. Cut Politicization and Waste

   • Action: Ban non-essential DEI programs and cancel funding for underperforming initiatives (e.g., LCS variants), redirecting savings to warfighting priorities.

   • Rationale: A disdain for “happy-talk” and misaligned priorities in DoD culture, seen in their critiques, implies a no-nonsense focus on mission essentials.

10. Engage Congress Aggressively

    • Action: Testify frequently to demand accountability for past failures (e.g., shipbuilding delays) and rally support for a leaner, meaner DoD—without requesting new money.

    • Rationale: Their call for Congress to “call these people out” suggests they’d lean hard on lawmakers to back a reform agenda.

Overall Approach

As Secretary, @cdrsalamander would likely be a pragmatic firebrand—less about flashy headlines, more about ruthless efficiency and restoring what they see as a neglected warfighting edge. They’d wield existing resources like a cleaver, cutting fat to sharpen the spear, with an eye fixed on China and the sea. This aligns with their profile’s tone: critical of complacency, nostalgic for decisive leadership, and laser-focused on readiness over rhetoric.